How a Renaissance treatise on political power maps onto the guiding principles of modern IT best practices
I first read The Prince as a university student, long before I had any connection to IT service management. It stayed with me not because of its reputation for cynicism, but because Machiavelli wrote with a clarity about human systems that felt timeless. Years later, when I began teaching ITIL, the echoes were impossible to ignore. I have drawn parallels between the two in my courses over the years, and the comparison has a way of making the guiding principles feel less like textbook definitions and more like something practitioners already know intuitively.
In 1513, a disgraced Florentine diplomat sat down to write a short handbook on seizing and holding political power. The result was The Prince, a book that has been called cynical, amoral, and brilliant in roughly equal measure for more than five centuries. Machiavelli never ran an IT service desk, never stood up a CI/CD pipeline, and never argued over whether something was an incident or a service request. And yet, if you read The Prince with fresh eyes, you find a startling number of ideas that echo the guiding principles of the ITIL framework, the global gold standard for IT service management.
(Ponte Vecchio, in Machiavelli’s beloved Florence. Photo by danethomasphotography.com)
This is not a coincidence. Both Machiavelli and ITIL address the same fundamental problem: how to govern a complex system composed of unpredictable people, shifting alliances, limited resources, and relentless external pressure while still delivering value? The context differs, but the underlying dynamics are remarkably similar.
The ITIL framework has undergone several major revisions. ITIL 4, published in 2019, introduced seven guiding principles. ITIL 5, released in early 2026, deliberately retained all seven, affirming their enduring relevance. I have taught both versions extensively, delivering more than 400 courses across all certification levels. I always start a new class with the principles because everything else in the framework makes more sense once they are internalized. Those principles are: Focus on Value, Start Where You Are, Progress Iteratively with Feedback, Collaborate and Promote Visibility, Think and Work Holistically, Keep It Simple and Practical, and Optimize and Automate.
What follows is a comparison I have been turning over for years, in courses, in conversations with practitioners, and in my reading. Now finally written down properly for the first time. Along the way, I will also note where the two traditions genuinely diverge, because the contrasts are as instructive as the parallels.
1. Focus on Value
ITIL: Everything links back to stakeholder value
The first and arguably most important ITIL guiding principle instructs practitioners to ensure that every activity the organization undertakes should map directly or indirectly to value for the organization, its customers, and its stakeholders. Both ITIL 4 and ITIL 5 emphasize that value is subjective, defined by the consumer, and that understanding the consumer’s perspective is the essential starting point.
Machiavelli: The prince must deliver what the people actually need
Machiavelli understood that a ruler’s survival depends on delivering tangible value to the governed. A prince who fails to secure his people’s welfare, safety, property, and commerce will not hold power for long, no matter how clever his political maneuvering. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli repeatedly returns to the idea that legitimacy flows from outcomes, not from titles or lineage. The people do not care about your governance model; they care whether they are better off under your rule.
The parallel
Both frameworks insist that value, as perceived by those being served, is the ultimate measure of success. An IT service organization that delivers technically excellent services no one wants is no different from a prince who builds grand monuments while his people starve. The lesson for modern IT leaders: measure what matters to your stakeholders, not what is easy to count.
The divergence
ITIL frames value as co-created with stakeholders in a spirit of partnership. Machiavelli’s prince delivers value more unilaterally; it is strategic benevolence in service of power retention, not a collaborative relationship. In my experience, most organizations aspire to the ITIL model of co-creation, yet in practice many still operate closer to Machiavelli’s: decisions are made centrally and presented as value to a consumer with limited input.
2. Start Where You Are
ITIL: Do not start from scratch when something reusable already exists
ITIL warns against the temptation to tear everything down and rebuild from scratch. Instead, the framework advises practitioners to objectively assess the current state, identify what is working, and build on existing services, processes, people, and tools. Measurement and direct observation should inform this assessment, but the framework also cautions against overreliance on data that may be biased or incomplete.
Machiavelli: Inherited principalities are easier to hold than new conquests
Some of the most practical advice in The Prince centers on the wisdom of working with what already exists. Machiavelli argues that a prince who inherits an existing state has a tremendous advantage: the institutions, customs, and loyalties are already in place. The ruler who destroys existing structures unnecessarily creates enemies and undermines the stability those structures provide. Even when conquest is unavoidable, Machiavelli counsels preserving as much of the existing order as possible.
The parallel
Both traditions recognize that the urge to start fresh is seductive yet usually wasteful. The IT leader who insists on replacing every legacy system at once makes the same mistake as the conqueror who dissolves all existing institutions on day one. In both cases, the result is disruption, loss of institutional knowledge, and unnecessary risk. Machiavelli diagnosed this pattern five centuries ago, and I have watched it repeat across organizations ever since.
The divergence
ITIL’s tone is optimistic and appreciative: look at what you have, find the value in it, and build on it. Machiavelli’s tone is cautionary and strategic: preserve existing structures because destroying them creates enemies who will undermine you. Same practical conclusion, very different motivations.
3. Progress Iteratively with Feedback
ITIL: Small, manageable steps with continuous feedback loops
ITIL advises practitioners to resist the temptation to do everything at once. Large initiatives must be broken into smaller, manageable iterations that can be executed, evaluated, and adjusted. Feedback (from users, data, and stakeholders) is not a luxury; it is the mechanism that keeps each iteration aligned with real needs rather than drifting to assumptions.
Machiavelli: Adapt constantly, and never assume fortune will remain constant
Machiavelli’s concept of virtu versus fortuna is essentially an argument for adaptive, iterative governance. Fortune, he argues, controls roughly half of human affairs; the other half is within our control. The successful prince is one who continuously reads the conditions, adjusts his approach, and avoids committing irrevocably to any single course of action. Machiavelli repeatedly criticizes rulers who become complacent, assume yesterday’s strategy will work tomorrow, or launch grand campaigns without gathering intelligence along the way.
The parallel
Both Machiavelli and ITIL treat the environment as fundamentally uncertain and require continuous adaptation. The waterfall-style IT project that spends eighteen months gathering requirements before writing a single line of code is like Machiavelli’s overcommitted prince, who bets everything on a single grand strategy without checking whether conditions have changed. It is a pattern most practitioners recognize immediately.
The divergence
ITIL’s feedback loops are structured, transparent, and democratic: everyone participates. Machiavelli’s intelligence gathering is more like espionage: information flows upward to the prince, who alone decides how to act on it. Modern IT governance sits between these extremes, and the tension is real. How much do you democratize decision-making before speed and decisiveness suffer?
4. Collaborate and Promote Visibility
ITIL: Transparency, trust, and cross-boundary collaboration
ITIL argues that working across organizational boundaries yields better results, greater buy-in, and more sustainable outcomes. Information, work, and consequences should be made visible; hidden agendas should be avoided; and information should be shared as widely as possible. This principle directly addresses the organizational silos that plague so many enterprises.
Machiavelli: Manage alliances carefully, but control the flow of information
Here we find the sharpest divergence between the two traditions. Machiavelli is deeply concerned with alliances and relationships, yet his approach to information is almost the opposite of ITIL’s. For Machiavelli, information is a weapon. The prince must appear generous, merciful, and trustworthy, but he must also be strategic about what he reveals and to whom. In Machiavelli’s world, visibility is carefully managed.
The parallel
Both frameworks recognize that no leader or organization can succeed in isolation. Alliances, partnerships, and stakeholder relationships are essential. Machiavelli devotes significant attention to selecting the right allies, managing coalition dynamics, and understanding each party’s true interests, all of which align closely with ITIL’s stakeholder management guidance.
The divergence
ITIL promotes radical transparency, whereas Machiavelli promotes strategic opacity. This may be the most significant philosophical divide between the two approaches, and it raises a provocative question for IT leaders: Is full transparency always the right approach, or are there situations where selectively managing information flow yields better outcomes? Most experienced practitioners know the answer is more nuanced than ITIL’s idealism suggests, even if they are uncomfortable admitting it.
5. Think and Work Holistically
ITIL: No service exists in isolation
ITIL insists that the outcomes achieved by a service provider and consumer will suffer unless the organization treats the service as a whole, not merely its parts. Results are delivered through the effective integration of information, technology, organization, people, practices, partners, and agreements, all coordinated to deliver defined value.
Machiavelli: A principality is a system, and the prince must govern the whole
Machiavelli treats the state as a complex, interconnected system. Military strength without popular support is fragile. Popular support without competent administration is chaotic. Economic prosperity without security is vulnerable. The successful prince must attend to all dimensions at once: the army, the treasury, the nobility, the populace, foreign relations, and the church, because neglecting any one element creates a weakness that enemies will exploit.
The parallel
Both frameworks are fundamentally systems-thinking approaches. ITIL’s four dimensions of service management (organizations and people, information and technology, partners and suppliers, value streams and processes) map closely to Machiavelli’s multidimensional model of statecraft. In both cases, the message is the same: optimize one dimension at the expense of others, and the entire system degrades.
The divergence
Minor, in this case. Both traditions are genuinely holistic. The main difference is that Machiavelli’s holism is threat-oriented (he thinks in terms of vulnerabilities and attack surfaces), whereas ITIL’s holism is value-oriented, focusing on optimization and co-creation. Modern IT organizations arguably need both lenses.
6. Keep It Simple and Practical
ITIL: Eliminate what does not add value
ITIL advises eliminating any process, service, action, or metric that fails to add value or produce a useful outcome. Use the minimum necessary steps to accomplish the objective. Always apply outcome-based thinking to produce practical solutions that deliver results.
Machiavelli: Effective governance is lean governance
Machiavelli has little patience for complexity for its own sake. He admires rulers who achieve their objectives with economy of means. His ideal prince is decisive, direct, and unencumbered by unnecessary ceremony or bureaucracy. When discussing the administration of conquered territories, he consistently recommends the simplest effective approach, often arguing that minimal intervention preserves stability better than elaborate systems of control.
The parallel
Both traditions are deeply pragmatic and suspicious of unnecessary complexity. The ITIL practitioner who insists on a seventeen-step change-approval process for a routine patch is like Machiavelli’s over-governing prince, who meddles in every village dispute. Both create more problems than they solve. The shared wisdom: do what works with the minimum viable overhead.
The divergence
ITIL frames simplicity as kindness, reducing the burden on people and enabling them to work more effectively. Machiavelli frames simplicity as ruthless efficiency, eliminating anything that does not contribute to the objective. The emotional register differs, but the practical outcome is strikingly similar.
7. Optimize and Automate
ITIL: Use resources to their best effect; let technology handle repeatable tasks
The final ITIL guiding principle instructs organizations to eliminate waste, use human resources where they add the most value, and automate everything technology can handle more efficiently. Human intervention should occur only where it adds genuine value.
Machiavelli: Rely on your own arms, and let systems do the governing
Machiavelli’s equivalent is his insistence on building reliable, self-sustaining systems of governance. He is deeply skeptical of mercenaries (soldiers who fight for pay rather than loyalty) and argues that a prince must build his own army, institutions, and capacity. In modern terms, Machiavelli would advise you to invest in your own automation and tooling rather than depend entirely on outsourced capabilities you do not control.
The parallel
Both frameworks advocate building internal capabilities and using technology (or systems) to reduce reliance on variable, expensive, and unreliable human effort for routine tasks. Machiavelli’s disdain for mercenaries translates surprisingly well to the modern IT context: organizations that outsource everything and automate nothing are building on sand.
The divergence
ITIL embraces a rich ecosystem of partners and suppliers as a positive dimension of service delivery. Machiavelli is fundamentally distrustful of outsiders. Modern IT organizations need to strike a balance: collaborate openly (ITIL) while never ceding control of your core capabilities (Machiavelli).
The consistency of the ITIL guiding principles across versions 4 and 5 tells us something important: these principles have reached a level of maturity and universality that transcends any single technology generation. That they also resonate with a 500-year-old treatise on political governance tells us something even more important: they are not merely IT principles. They are principles for governing complex systems amid uncertainty, limited resources, and competing stakeholder interests.
Machiavelli would have instantly recognized the ITIL practitioner’s dilemmas: the tension between innovation and stability, the challenge of managing stakeholder expectations, the risk of over-engineering solutions to simple problems, and the constant struggle to maintain visibility and control in a complex, decentralized environment.
The two traditions diverge primarily in their moral frameworks. ITIL is grounded in collaboration, transparency, and mutual value creation. Machiavelli is grounded in pragmatism, strategic advantage, and the unsentimental realities of power. The most effective IT leaders draw on both traditions, whether they admit it or not. They collaborate genuinely (ITIL) while remaining strategically aware of organizational politics (Machiavelli). They promote transparency (ITIL) while recognizing that timing and framing matter enormously (Machiavelli). They focus on stakeholder value (both), but they never forget that sustained influence requires sustained results.
I have been turning this comparison over in my mind for years, in courses, in conversations with practitioners, and in my reading. The parallels hold. The next time you sit down to review your service management framework, consider keeping a copy of The Prince on your desk. Not as a guide to ruthlessness, but as a reminder that governing complex systems poses ancient, human, and universal challenges. The tools change. The principles endure.
Dane is an accredited ITIL 5 trainer and consultant based in Sweden. He has delivered more than 400 ITIL courses to more than 4,500 students across all certification levels. He writes about IT service management, organizational design, and the intersection of classical strategy and modern technology practice.
This article was first published on Substack on April 14, 2026.